CABALA
CABALA
ODd of tiie tidrteenth, and the revene (iiiAldiig the al- phabet called Atbam^ D^^M). See Atbach. Tbe more multi^uioiia these trifles, the easier it is to ar- rive in every given case at a result, and the less wit or thooght is required. Thus the Christian theology of the nth century, which itself inclined to literal be- lief, and which, by its strong polemical aspect against the J^ews, was led to a diligent stody of the cabalistic arts, through them fbnnd everywhere in the Old Test, evidenoes of the Christian dogmas (e. g. Gen. 1, 1,
n^fin5=rmr! rrrrn rroh^ 3k irn •)§, l e.ja-
m^ tpirttutf pater \ treaumUoiperfecta),
In the 13tb centory we find evidence of a knoiH- edge of the cabaUstic ideas and methods in the works of the Spaniard Raymond LnUos ; hot with him, as well as among his direct and indire^ followers, these elements of Judaic philosophy take the character of eccentricities and superstitions more than of grand speculative theory. Two centuries elapsed after this before the Cabala really entered the circle of Christian mental development. Its admissicm was prepared, on the one hand, by the overthrow of the worn-out scho- lasticism of Aristotle, and the consequent tendency to- ward Platonic ideas, although, of course, these latter were yet in their more elementary form, as they had been transmitted to Alexandria by Eastern hifiuences ; on the other hand, the same result was conduced by an awakening interest in the study of nature, which, it is true, was still in a poetic, dream-like infancy, but was the more inclined to entertain itself with myste- ries, as it had discovered as yet but few natural laws. To these was, however, joined a third and more pow- erful influence, namely, the belief handed down by the Cithers of the first centuries that all the wisdom cdf na- tions, and chiefly Platonic philosophy, actually took their origin in the Hebraic revelation ; that, in a more extended sense than the popular religions histories ad- mit, the Jewish people were the possessors and keep- ers of a treasury of wisdom and knowledge which time er sealons research could alone reveal. What wonder is it, then, if the assertion of tbe Cabalisto that they possessed such a treasure found credence end gained them fbUowers? The progress of Christians toward tbe Cabala was greatly helped by the conversion of a large number of Jews to Christianity, in wliich they recognised a closer relatfon to theb Gnostic views, and also by the Christians perceiving that Gnosticism could become a powerfhl instrument for the conversion of the Jews. Among the converted Jews we notice Paul Bled, physician in ordinary to the Emperor Maximil- ian, and author of Ccelfttii AffrieuUura; Judas Ben Isaac Abnbanel (Leon Hebneus), son of the renewed Ptetnguese ezegist, and author of the Diedogi de amon. Among Christians we will only mention the two most important : John Pico della Mirandola and John Reuch- lin; the former as a highly gifted and enthusiastic syn- cratist, author of ComeUsumm cabbalutiecB teetmdwn Beentam diteiplmam sapieniim ffebr. (1486); the other a fhithful disdple of the dassies, in connection with mysticiflm, but opposed to scholasticism and monachal toipitnde, anthor of De verba tnrijtco (1494); De arte eaUaKtHea (1517). His, and some other writings of ihb same kind, are collected in the work Artee Cabbti' halkm k, e, recondUm ikeologitB et phSoeopkuB Scriptorunif torn, i (unicus), ex. bibl. J. Pistorii (Basle, 1587, fol.). The powerftil preponderance of the religious and Church interests, ss well as those of practical politics, which became perceptible in tbe first quarter of the 16Ch century, giving to tbe mind a positive impulse, sad to studies a substantial foundation, arrested the farther development of the Cabala; and when, in lat- tsr times, it was occasionally taken up again, it was ntiier with t|ie view of giving a high-soundlhg, mys- terious name to theories which liad not strength enough to stand by themselves, than as a genuine resurrection of tbe old
TI. ZASfotetv.— As a sort of accessory snt^ect of the so-called Orientalism, and even of Biblical erudi- tion, the Cabala is mentioned by the ancient arduBO- logues and isagogics (as Cuneus, Beepubl, Hebr, ; Wal- ton, Pr^leffp. ; Hettinger, T%e$tnirvs PMIoL ; Lensden, PkUologm ffebr, ; Pfiifer, Critica Saera, and many others); but they contain nothing of importance re- specting it. Much more copious, though not yet com- plete, is the information contained in tiie works of Bud- deus, PJUfotopAta Ebraorm^ (1708); Hackspan, if»f- eeOemeaf Braum, SeleetaSaerOf v; tlMmmannfJ&ditcke Theologie, The work of Sommer, Spedm/en Ikeotogim Sokariom (Goth. 1784), is (like many others which Fa- bridus quotes in the BibUngraphia Aniiq. p. 246) only a polemico<apologetie attempt at tracing the Cliristian doctrine of the Trinity hi the CabaU. Of a higher plkilosophio character are tiie works of Wachter, J^ri^ noswfiMM M» JwdemikuMy and Ebiadariut eabbaUtiicus s. reeomdikf Ebraormn pUlotopkia bmi$ reemmo (Amst. 1699), in which the polemic tone prevails. Next are Basnage, BiiL det Jmfi (tom. iiiX and Brucker, ffi$t. PAiheopkia (voL ii), who, however, firom insuffident study of the cniginal sources, acknowledges tilmself unable to master its intricate histoiy. Among later writers we find the well-known works of Tennemann, Tiedemann, and Buhle. Tbe line of the more recent monogaaptiic researches begins with Kleuker (Riga, 1786). But Christiaa writers, whose early knowledge of rabbinic literature has been fast waning, generally forsake it. Tholuck's treatise, /)e orte (7a56d<v (1887), treats only of a preliminary question. Lutterbeck, in the first volume of his NeiUett, Lehrhegriffy lias a very interesting chapter on the JezUrah and Zohar. Moli- tor's extensive work, Philoe, d, GeackidUe d. Tradition (1827, pt i-iu), is chiefiy theoretical. Reuchlin {De arte CabbaUsHcOy 1517) is still a valuable authority. One of the latest is Etheridge (Jervealem and Tiberias^ Lond. 1856, 12mo). Next to the extensive work of Ad. Franck, La Kabbale ou la Philofopkie reSgieuae det ffebreux (Paris, 1842; tr. bv Jellinek, Lps. 1844), we name the PhUoeophia CabhaMiica etpamiheumut (1832) of M. Freystadt. See the Ecketk RemmOy Feb. 1856 ; Chriatian Remembrancer^ April, 1862.